ID: 000036drn

[ ]

Dear [ ] :

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Specifically, you wish to know whether a front entrance door on the curb side of a non-school bus (over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) may count towards the emergency exit requirement and can be credited the maximum allowable area of 3458 cm per exit. The answer is yes.

Before addressing the substantive question that you raised, I note that in a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you requested confidential treatment of the identity of your company. In order to save time, I agree to keep confidential the name of your company and all other identifying information in this letter. The enclosed copy of your redacted incoming letter will be placed in the public docket. We will make available to the public only the enclosed version of your letter to me that is purged of all references to your identity. [1]

You asked Ms. Nakama to address whether, for a non-school bus over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR, Standard No. 217 permits manufacturers to designate the front entrance door as an emergency exit. If the door meets the standards emergency exit requirements, the answer is yes. We answered this question in the affirmative in a June 30, 1988, interpretation letter to Mr. Terry K. Brock of Coons Manufacturing Inc. (copy enclosed). In that letter, we stated that: "As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard No. 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. [I]t has never been this agencys position that only push-out window and roof exits may be used to satisfy Standard No. 217 requirements."

Standard No. 217 requirements for non-school bus emergency exits have been amended since the issuance of the interpretation letter to Coons Manufacturing. However, the agencys interpretation that a front door that meets Standard No. 217 emergency exit requirements can be considered an emergency exit has not changed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:212
d.5/8/03





---

[1] In the future, if you want to submit information that you consider confidential you need to follow the procedure set forth in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information.

ID: nht90-4.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marc J. Fink -- Esq., Dow, Lohnes & Albertson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-90 from M.J. Fink and S.C. Crampton (Signature by S.C. Crampton) to R.F. Hellmuth (OCC 4866)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1990, to Robert F. Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, on behalf of your client, John A. Rosatti. Mr. Rosatti would like to import a nonconforming Porsche 959 into the United States as a "demo nstration" car. He intends to promote business by displaying it in his automobile dealerships and does not intend to drive it on the roads. Specifically, he would like to display it in his Acura dealership to build showroom traffic. He has offered to remove the engine, and to declare that, if the car is transferred by sale or inheritance, "the new owner will be bound to keep the engine and body of the car separate."

In support of your request, you argue that entry into the United States is permissible pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), which implements 15 U.S.C. 1397(j). This section provides that the agency may exempt any person from the prohibitions in sections 1397(a) (1)(A) and (c)(1) "upon such terms and conditions as (NHTSA) may find necessary for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events."

We are unable to agree with your interpretation and arguments. The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which added 15 U.S.C. 1397(c) through (j), responded to a report of the General Accounting Office which indicated that a large number of n onconforming vehicles were being imported into the United States without sufficient assurances or evidence that they were being brought into compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. The provisions that were enacted by Congress represent a significant, and, we believe, restrictive change from the regulations previously in force, and a clear directive to the agency to proceed in accordance with the new statutory language.

The agency's previous position is represented by language that you cite in the preamble of the final rule (which you term Supplemental Information) adopting Part 591:

"Importation for this class of noncomplying motor vehicles (i.e., demonstration vehicles) has been permitted pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety would not be affected by the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles not generally used on the public roads, and whose appearance on them would be limited." (54 FR 40076).

Under the previous regulation, vehicles could be imported for purposes of "show, test, experiment, competition, repair, or alterations" (19 CFR

12.80(b)(1)(vii)). You will note that, contrary to your parenthetical statement, the demonstration exception did not exist in the old regulation. The most appropriate exception in the old regulation for what your client contemplates was the one for "sh ow." Under 591.5(j) of the new regulation, which follows the language of the statute, a vehicle may be imported for the purposes outlined in the second paragraph of this letter, none of which include "show." We interpreted "show" to mean "to cause to b e seen," such as in a static display. We do not interpret the word "demonstrations" as encompassing static display; a vehicle is "demonstrated" to a prospective purchaser, for example, by allowing him or her to drive it on the public roads. However, wi th respect to the new regulation, we have interpreted the word "demonstration" only in the context of allowing importation of nonconforming vehicles by registered importers who wish to prove, or demonstrate, that the vehicle is capable of conformance mod ification under one of the provisions of 1397(c)(3)(A)(i). This, of course, is not the situation with your client, and we decline to provide the interpretation you suggest, as we do not believe that an importation under that circumstance accords with th e intent of Congress.

ID: nht88-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/88

FROM: VICKY S. JOHNSON -- STAFF ATTORNEY, Kansas Dept. of Transportation

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-9-88 TO VICKY JOHNSON, KANSAS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION; FROM ERIKA JONES, NHTSA

TEXT: I talked recently with a member of your staff, Joan Tillman, concerning a school transportation issue which has arisen in our state. This letter is to follow up on that conversation and to request that you give us your thoughts on the subject.

Many school districts in Kansas have, for a number of years, been using vans with more than ten seating positions that do not meet school bus standards for school transportation. Since I became responsible for KDOT legal advice on school transporatat ion issues, I have been attemping to educate the districts concerning the civil liability risks inherent in the use of non school bus student transportation as well as the fact that it is in violation of federal regulation for the manufacturer or dealer to sell them a vehicle with more than ten seating positions for pupil transportation without meeting relevant standards. I think I have most of them persuaded that 12-15 passenger vehicles which come from the manufacturer with their 49 CFR 567.4 label c ontaining the "bus" classification are a source of considerable risk. However, they have come up with a new approach. They are now ordering the same vans with ten seating positions and the manufacturer is labeling them multi-purpose passenger vehicles. Since the definition of that term includes ten or less seating positions, and therefore takes them out of the "bus" category, they feel safe with this new approach.

In my opinion, this new approach avoids the "illegal transaction" since the manufacturer is not selling a "bus." However, I still believe there is considerable risk of civil liability in the events of an accident. I would appreciate your comments on this issue.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you need any clarification of my request please call me at (913) 296-3831.

ID: nht94-2.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Montgomery -- Safety Manager, Leprino Transportation Division, Leprino Foods (Denver, CO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from Marvin A. Leach to Robert Hellmuth (OCC 9821); Also attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from Marvin A. Leach to to Robert L. Montgomery; Also attached to a letter dated 3/9/94 from Robert Montgomery to Mike Baker

TEXT:

This replies to your letter of March 9, 1994, to the Regional Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You have questions regarding the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a regulation of the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

You have enclosed photos of two rear end treatments. In Photo #1, the conspicuity treatment is applied "on the doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." The conspicuity treatment ap pears to extend the full width of the vehicle. In Photo #2, the reflectorized material is located "4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." In this configuration, the conspicuity treatment has been relocated to a position between the r ear lighting units so that it no longer extends the full width of the vehicle.

Photo #1 represents the trailer as received from the manufacturer. Photo #2 represents the modifications you wish to make to the trailer. You have asked whether the configuration depicted in Photo #2 complies with Standard No. 108.

The manufacturer of the trailer has certified its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the conspicuity treatment location requirements of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) specifies that the material b e located "as close to the extreme edges as practicable." The relocation you contemplate would place the material where it is not as close to the extreme edges of the trailer as it originally was. This would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 .

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(20(A)) (the Act) prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the vehicle owner. This means that Leprino Foods and its employees are not themselves prohibited by the Act f rom modifying your trailers to the configuration depicted in Photo #2. It does mean that a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business" cannot perform this work for you.

We surmise that your trailers are subject to the jurisdiction of the FHWA when they are operated in interstate commerce. FHWA regulations require your trailer to be equipped to conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, if you modify your trailers so that they no longer conform to the rear location requirements of

Standard No. 108, you would be in violation of the regulations of that agency. This is to advise you that the FHWA has concurred in this interpretation to you.

Either mounting height location is permitted. Originally, Standard No. 108 did specify a mounting height for rear conspicuity material that was "as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface." However, the agency amended this paragraph on October 6, 1993, to adopt a height range of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." This is the equivalent of 15 to 60 inches above the road surface. Therefore, the mounting heights of 46 an d 56 inches shown in your two photos is in accordance with the revised requirement.

Finally, we note your comment that the diagram in the Federal Register "failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van." The requirements that must be adhered to are found in the text of Standard No. 108; Figu re 30 is meant only as a general guide as to the placement of the conspicuity material. Obviously, it cannot depict the exact rear configuration of all van trailers.

ID: 9821

Mr. Robert L. Montgomery
Safety Manager
Leprino Transportation Division
Leprino Foods
P.O. Box 17989
Denver, CO 80217-0989

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

This replies to your letter of March 9, 1994, to the Regional Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You have questions regarding the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

You have enclosed photos of two rear end treatments. In Photo #1, the conspicuity treatment is applied "on the doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." The conspicuity treatment appears to extend the full width of the vehicle. In Photo #2, the reflectorized material is located "4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." In this configuration, the conspicuity treatment has been relocated to a position between the rear lighting units so that it no longer extends the full width of the vehicle.

Photo #1 represents the trailer as received from the manufacturer. Photo #2 represents the modifications you wish to make to the trailer. You have asked whether the configuration depicted in Photo #2 complies with Standard No. 108.

The manufacturer of the trailer has certified its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the conspicuity treatment location requirements of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) specifies that the material be located "as close to the extreme edges as practicable." The relocation you contemplate would place the material where it is not as close to the extreme edges of the trailer as it originally was. This would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(20(A)) (the Act) prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the vehicle owner. This means that Leprino Foods and its employees are not themselves prohibited by the Act from modifying your trailers to the configuration depicted in Photo #2. It does mean that a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business" cannot perform this work for you.

We surmise that your trailers are subject to the jurisdiction of the FHWA when they are operated in interstate commerce. FHWA regulations require your trailer to be equipped to conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, if you modify your trailers so that they no longer conform to the rear location requirements of Standard No. 108, you would be in violation of the regulations of that agency. This is to advise you that the FHWA has concurred in this interpretation to you.

Either mounting height location is permitted. Originally, Standard No. 108 did specify a mounting height for rear conspicuity material that was "as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface." However, the agency amended this paragraph on October 6, 1993, to adopt a height range of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." This is the equivalent of 15 to 60 inches above the road surface. Therefore, the mounting heights of 46 and 56 inches shown in your two photos is in accordance with the revised requirement.

Finally, we note your comment that the diagram in the Federal Register "failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van." The requirements that must be adhered to are found in the text of Standard No. 108; Figure 30 is meant only as a general guide as to the placement of the conspicuity material. Obviously, it cannot depict the exact rear configuration of all van trailers.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref.108#VSA d:4/14/94

ID: nht94-6.28

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Montgomery -- Safety Manager, Leprino Transportation Division, Leprino Foods (Denver, CO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from Marvin A. Leach to Robert Hellmuth (OCC 9821); Also attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from Marvin A. Leach to to Robert L. Montgomery; Also attached to a letter dated 3/9/94 from Robert Montgomery to Mike Baker

TEXT:

This replies to your letter of March 9, 1994, to the Regional Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You have questions regarding the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

You have enclosed photos of two rear end treatments. In Photo #1, the conspicuity treatment is applied "on the doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." The conspicuity treatment appears to extend the full width of the vehicle. In Photo #2, the reflectorized material is located "4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." In this configuration, the conspicuity treatment has been relocated to a position between the rear lighting units so that it no longer extends the full width of the vehicle.

Photo #1 represents the trailer as received from the manufacturer. Photo #2 represents the modifications you wish to make to the trailer. You have asked whether the configuration depicted in Photo #2 complies with Standard No. 108.

The manufacturer of the trailer has certified its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the conspicuity treatment location requirements of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) specifies that the material be located "as close to the extreme edges as practicable." The relocation you contemplate would place the material where it is not as close to the extreme edges of the trailer as it originally was. This would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(20(A)) (the Act) prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the vehicle owner. This means that Leprino Foods and its employees are not themselves prohibited by the Act from modifying your trailers to the configuration depicted in Photo #2. It does mean that a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business" cannot perform this work for you.

We surmise that your trailers are subject to the jurisdiction of the FHWA when they are operated in interstate commerce. FHWA regulations require your trailer to be equipped to conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, if you modify your trailers so that they no longer conform to the rear location requirements of

Standard No. 108, you would be in violation of the regulations of that agency. This is to advise you that the FHWA has concurred in this interpretation to you.

Either mounting height location is permitted. Originally, Standard No. 108 did specify a mounting height for rear conspicuity material that was "as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface." However, the agency amended this paragraph on October 6, 1993, to adopt a height range of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." This is the equivalent of 15 to 60 inches above the road surface. Therefore, the mounting heights of 46 and 56 inches shown in your two photos is in accordance with the revised requirement.

Finally, we note your comment that the diagram in the Federal Register "failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van." The requirements that must be adhered to are found in the text of Standard No. 108; Figure 30 is meant only as a general guide as to the placement of the conspicuity material. Obviously, it cannot depict the exact rear configuration of all van trailers.

ID: nht90-1.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1990

FROM: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Kurtz -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to B. Gill from B. Felrice; (A35; Part 543)

TEXT:

In accordance with the requirements of Part 543, "Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard", section 543.9 "Terminating or modifying an exemption", Honda Motor Co., Ltd. hereby submits its petition to modify the exemption granted by NHTSA for the Acura NS-X carline for model year 1991.

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. hereby requests permission to use an antitheft device similar to, but different from the standard equipment antitheft device which would have been installed under the current exemption. Please note that no vehicles of this carline have yet been manufactured. We request that NHTSA approve the modification of this exemption by April 2, 1990 since we plan to use the modified antitheft device in all production vehicles.

Enclosed are revised pages for the system description showing how the system would be changed. The revised page 3 has been changed to show that the system can be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Previously, it was n ecessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. We believe that this improvement makes the system more convenient to use.

The second change is to include the radio in the alarm system. The revised page 5 shows that when the radio is removed the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal is disconnected, if the wiring is cut or if the coupler is disconnected. Pag es 20 and 21 have also been revised to show this change. This change does not affect the operation of the vehicle theft deterrent system as described in our original petition but it does provide additional security for the radio receiver.

Please call me if you have any questions or if you need additional information.

(Enclosure) NS-X is equipped with an auto door lock system as standard equipment. This system makes it possible to lock both doors simultaneously by locking either door.

Therefore, it's possible to arm the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked.

Additional explanations:

It is possible to arm the theft deterrent system by using the door button

without using a key. When the driver's door button is pushed down, passenger's door button will be pushed down automatically. Then, the driver's door is closed, the system will be armed. However, it's necessary to make sure that the driver's door button has been pushed down when arming the system by using the passenger's door button.

(diagram omitted)

This system incorporates a security indicator light located on the driver's door lining as a visual check of the arming condition.

(diagram omitted)

3-2 Activation of the system:

If any of the following conditions occur, the horns will sound, headlights pop up and flash and sidemarker lamps, position lamps and tail lamps will flash for about 2 minutes.

1. Door is opened forcibly. 2. Engine hood is opened. 3. Trunk lid is opened without using the key. 4. Front hood is opened. 5. Battery terminal(s) is removed and reconnected. 6. Engine starter circuit and battery circuit are bypassed by breaking the ignition switch. 7. Front hood/engine hood/trunk lid opener in the vehicle is operated.

8. Radio is removed; a. The radio terminal is disconnected by removing the attaching screw.

b. The wiring is cut. c. The coupler is disconnected.

(Diagrams omitted)

ID: GF002300

Mr. Paul Pridemore
Production Manager
Cronkhite Industries, Inc.
2212 Kickapoo Drive
P.O. Box 877
Danville, IL 61834-0877

Dear Mr. Pridmore:

This responds to your letter of March 14 and phone conversations with George Feygin of my staff, regarding your Model 7000 trailer. You asked us whether your trailer qualifies as a "special purpose vehicle" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear Impact Protection. You also asked whether a "tilting rear guard," photographs of which you have enclosed, would satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No. 224, as well as FMVSS No. 223, Rear Impact Guards. I apologize for the delay in responding. The issues raised by your letter and phone conversations are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issues FMVSS applicable to new vehicles and equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSS.

In an attempt to reduce the frequency and severity of underride collisions, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 224 (61 FR 2004, January 24, 1996). The standard requires that all new trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 lbs or more be equipped with an underride guard that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 223. The standard currently excludes pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, wheels-back trailers, and "special purpose vehicles" because attachment of an underride guard to these specific vehicles is impracticable or unnecessary.

A "Special Purpose Vehicle" is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as a trailer or a semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in, or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard. Your "tilting rear guard," which acts as an approach ramp when the trailer is tilted down, is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied by a conventional the rear impact guard. Therefore, this "tilting rear guard" would have to be considered work-performing equipment for your tilt bed trailer to be excluded.

Your vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. There is no definition of "work-performing equipment" in Standard No. 224. However, the Agency has historically interpreted the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Approach ramps do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle or equipment driving onto the tilt bed. Therefore, a "tilting rear guard" that acts as an approach ramp is not work-performing equipment, and your trailer does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

In regard to your second question, we note that the static dimensions of your "tilting rear guard" (as described in your letter and accompanying photographs) appear to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 223 & 224. Specifically, the guard appears to extend to within 100 mm of the side extremities of the trailer, thus satisfying the width requirement of S5.1.1; the bottom edge of the guard is said to be within 382 mm of the ground, thus satisfying height requirements of S5.1.2; and the guard appears to be on the very edge of the trailer, thus satisfying rear surface requirements of S5.1.3. However, FMVSS No. 223 contains guard strength and energy absorption requirements found in S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 respectively. You have provided no information as to whether the "tilting rear guard" is able to meet the performance requirements of S5.2.1 and S5.2.2. Accordingly, we are not in position to determine whether the "tilting rear guard" is in compliance with FMVSS Nos. 223 & 224.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:224
d.6/6/03

ID: nht72-4.17

DATE: 02/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Borg-Warner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your request of January 18, 1972, for a letter confirming the written interpretation of Standard 209 concerning automatic locking retractors given to Toyota on November 10, 1971.

We understand from your letter that the "Borg-Warner Maji-Buckle" is identical to the combination buckle and retractor shown us by Toyota. A seat belt with the Maji-Buckle" is, therefore, considered to be equipped with an automatic locking retractor. A retractor is classified according to its operation, not its design, and the "Maji-Buckle" operates in the manner prescribed by Standard 209 for automatic locking retractors.

The comments made to Toyota concerning the test required by S5.3(a)(6) also apply to the "Maji-Buckle."

Please advise us if we can be of further assistance.

ID: 18432.drn

Mr. Andreas Geis
Bosch
Abteilung/Dept.: K4-RS/EWR5
FAX: GERMANY 7223/82/2310
FAX: (011) (49) 7223/82/2320

Dear Mr. Geis:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of metric conversions to Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You wish to know whether the measurement of 625 millimeters (mm) specified in the definition of "Glazing surface reference line" at S3, 571.104, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is a typographical error. You state that depending on whether a conversion factor of 25 or 25.4 mm to the inch is used, the metric measurement could be 625 or 635 mm. You state that "10 mm would mean a considerable difference to the position of areas A, B, and C on the windshield."

As explained below, in part because of your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has amended the measurement in the definition of "Glazing surface reference line" to 635 mm. We agree that the 10 mm difference between 625 mm and 635 mm could result in a substantive change to Standard No. 104, a result that the agency did not intend when it converted English measurements to metric measurements.

In changing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to metric measurements, NHTSA made a policy determination that, in order to arrive at measurements that would be easiest to work with, it would generally use equivalent conversions, not exact conversions. To illustrate, in converting an inch, the equivalent measurement in the metric system would be 2.5 centimeters, while the exact conversion would be 2.54 centimeters. (See Federal Register notice of April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14691).) The agency also did not intend to make any changes in the stringency of the affected safety standards.

In accordance with regulatory procedures, before the Standard No. 104 metric conversion measurements were made final, NHTSA gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. In a Federal Register notice of March 15, 1994 (59 FR 11962), NHTSA proposed that the 25 inches specified in "Glazing surface reference line" be converted to 625 mm. NHTSA did so in accordance with its stated policy that it would generally use equivalent conversions, not exact conversions. Thus, in making the conversion, it multiplied 25 inches by 25 mm, not 25.4 mm.

Upon receiving your letter, NHTSA reexamined the conversion of the measurement in "Glazing surface reference line." It was determined that this is an instance where the exact conversion should have been used, to avoid making a substantive change in the standard. Thus, in a Federal Register correction notice of September 24, 1998, (63 FR 50995, copy enclosed) NHTSA corrected the measurement in "Glazing surface reference line" to 635 mm (see p. 51000). In changing the measurement from 625 mm to 635 mm, NHTSA stated that: "because the glazing surface reference line centers the windshield wiper path on the windshield, a difference of 10 mm could result in a different wiper path center, substantively changing the Standard." (63 FR 50996). The changes in the correction notice will take effect on May 27, 1999, but immediate optional compliance is permitted as of September 24, 1998.

You also stated that the "inch measurements in tables I through IV appear to be converted at 25.4 mm per 1 inch and then rounded to the nearest full 10 mm." You are correct.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. In the future, it would be helpful if you would provide a mailing address for response. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:104
d.3/4/99